Re: [HACKERS] WIP aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
Cc: ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
Date: 2022-04-03 11:44:36
Message-ID: 20220403.204436.1773286534982306996.t-ishii@sranhm.sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> Or those three columns always, sum_lag sum_lag_2, min_lag max_lag,
>>> skipped, retried retries?
>>
>> What about this? (a log line is not actually folded)
>> interval_start num_transactions sum_latency sum_latency_2 min_latency
>> max_latency
>> failures serialization_failures deadlock_failures retried retries [
>> sum_lag sum_lag_2 min_lag max_lag [ skipped ] ]
>
> My 0.02€:
>
> I agree that it would be better to have a more deterministic
> aggregated log format.
>
> ISTM that it should skip failures and lags if no fancy options has
> been selected, i.e.:
>
> [ fails ... retries [ sum_lag ... [ skipped ] ] ?
>
> Alterlatively, as the failure stuff is added to the format, maybe it
> could be at the end:
>
> [ sum_lag ... [ skipped [ fails ... retries ] ] ] ?

I like this one.

interval_start num_transactions sum_latency sum_latency_2 min_latency max_latency
[sum_lag sum_lag_2 min_lag max_lag [ skipped [
failures serialization_failures deadlock_failures retried retries ] ] ]

Best reagards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2022-04-03 11:54:14 Re: [HACKERS] WIP aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2022-04-03 11:34:00 Re: Higher level questions around shared memory stats